I found it became significantly less irritating to me when I realized that decision makers simply suffered from an information problem and weren't specifically out to get me.
Imagine that you have something lots and lots of people want - say, a few hundred million dollars to give away in venture capital. Naturally, since lots of people want it, you're constantly bombarded by requests. After a short period of time, all these requests start to seem the same. Everybody has their startup baby. They all are absolutely certain that it's going to change the world. Most of them have very little experience and nothing in particular to recommend them.
If you're in this situation, what would you do? Every startup looks the same; you don't have enough information to pick one over another. You don't even enough time to begin gathering information to pick one over another.
So you winnow the field by picking ones that stand out for some reason. The easiest way is to pick only the ones that come recommended by friends. After all, you have a limited number of true friends, and they know how busy you are, and so they'll only forward on ventures that they really believe have potential.
The second easiest way is to pick founders whose names you recognize. Or founders whose past projects have names you recognize. There are a limited number of names that you'd recognize, and most of them are not asking you for venture capital, so this is a fairly safe way to narrow down the field.
Other than that, pretty much any way you choose of picking startups will be essentially random. It's like the half-season of House where he was picking his new team and randomly fired half the applicants. You wouldn't think that's fair either, right? Yet how else are you going to determine merit when you have far too many candidates to investigate each one in depth?
